Sunday, April 17, 2011 – 10:25 a.m.
As previously reported, for a presumably done deal, a lawsuit filed by former District Attorney employee against the County of San Bernardino and District Attorney Mike Ramos doesn’t appear to be quite done.
A courtroom proceeding last Tuesday must have been not so pleasant for the defendants based upon the flurry of legal filings generated Thursday.
The court docked for the case found here indicates the situation is not so cut and dry after all.
Case CIVDS1010909 – RISTOW -V- COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, ET AL
|05/05/2011 8:30 AM DEPT. M4||MOTION RE: CORRECT JUDGMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO||VACATED|
|04/27/2011 8:30 AM DEPT. M4||MOTION RE: CORRECT JUDGMENT BY DEFT CO. OF SAN BERN. – Minutes|
|04/27/2011 8:30 AM DEPT. M4||MOTION RE: FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF – Minutes|
|04/27/2011 8:30 AM DEPT. M4||EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DETERMINATION THAT JDGMT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED – Minutes|
|04/26/2011 8:30 AM DEPT. M4||MOTION RE: FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY PLAINTIFF CHERYL RISTOW||VACATED|
|04/14/2011||RESPONSE IS RETURNED BY COURT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): WE NEED AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OR IT MUST INDICATE THAT IT IS ELECTRONICALLY FILED.||Not Applicable|
|04/14/2011||NOTICE OF VACATED MAY 2011 HEARING FILED BY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DISTRICTATTORNEY’S.||Not Applicable|
|04/14/2011||DECLARATION OF EUGENE RAMIREZ FILED||Not Applicable|
|04/14/2011||OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO/FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DISTRICTATTORNEY’S||Not Applicable|
|04/14/2011||OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE BACHMAN FILED BY MICHAEL RAMOS||Not Applicable|
|04/14/2011||OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF JAMES V REISS FILED BY DA MICHAEL RAMOS||Not Applicable|
|04/14/2011||POINTS & AUTHORITIES FILED BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS.||Not Applicable|
|04/14/2011||OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO/FOR APPLICATION OF CHERYL RISTOW FILED BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS||Not Applicable|
|04/12/2011||HEARING RESCHEDULED TO 5/05/11 AT 8:30 IN DEPARTMENT M4||Not Applicable|
|04/12/2011||HEARING RESCHEDULED TO 5/05/11 AT 8:30 IN DEPARTMENT S37 – RESCHEDULED TO:||Not Applicable|
|04/12/2011||HEARING RESCHEDULED TO 4/26/11 AT 8:30 IN DEPARTMENT M4||Not Applicable|
|04/12/2011||HEARING RESCHEDULED TO 4/26/11 AT 8:30 IN DEPARTMENT S37 – RESCHEDULED TO:||Not Applicable|
|04/12/2011||CASE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO DEPARTMENT M4|
|04/12/2011||CASE TRANSFERRED TO NEW DEPARTMENT||Not Applicable|
|04/12/2011 8:29 AM DEPT. M4||EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DETERMINATION THAT JDGMT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED – Minutes||COM-POST Disp.|
The litigation involves allegations by plaintiff Cheryl Ristow, that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, when she refused to lie about a previous romantic relationship she had with Ramos,
The relationship spanned an approximatley 18 month period between 2003 and 2005.
The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Ramos urged Ristow to lie about the affair before information was to appear in a local tabloid.
Ristow was forced from her employment as a District Attorney Investigative Technician in August 2010.